Yup, then we'll have guys standing along the side of the road holding signs that read "Will Call for Food". . . <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Ron Van Putte <<a href="mailto:vanputte@cox.net">vanputte@cox.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Yeah. How about a contingency caller contract in which the caller gets a percentage of what the pilot wins. My caller would starve.<br>
<br>
Ron VP<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
<br>
On Jun 18, 2008, at 9:53 AM, Keith Hoard wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Wow, I didn't know I was supposed to be paying my caller. Can I find one that works for tips only?<br>
<br>
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Woodward, Jim (US SSA) <<a href="mailto:jim.woodward@baesystems.com" target="_blank">jim.woodward@baesystems.com</a>> wrote:<br>
Del,<br>
<br>
<br>
Why do you feel you need to have a professional caller for precision aerobatics?<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Jim<br>
<br>
<br>
From: <a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:nsrca-" target="_blank">nsrca-</a><a href="mailto:discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] On Behalf Of Del<br>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:26 AM<br>
To: General pattern discussion<br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks Chris... I appreciate your good wishes<br>
<br>
<br>
.. all I can say is,... with the changes in costs to compete and need to have a professional caller etc. all make it next to impossible for me to compete anymore. Becomes to prohibitive for a casual competitor.<br>
<br>
<br>
Del<br>
<br>
----- Original Message -----<br>
<br>
From: chris moon<br>
<br>
To: <a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<br>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:19 AM<br>
<br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks Del.<br>
We are actually on the same page. My points were directed more<br>
generally than towards anyone who is posting to this topic. I just<br>
wanted to make it clear that personal preferences are not a judging<br>
parameter and that exaggerated elements in order to please someone who<br>
is looking pretty much only for certain elements of a maneuver rather<br>
than the whole is also wrong. Also, I read posts where people clearly<br>
don't understand the difference between aircraft pitch attitude and<br>
angle of attack. Two very different things. I see time and again<br>
people (yes, me too) get whacked for not showing some silly 40 degree<br>
nose up attitude in order to "prove" the plane stalled before beginning<br>
a spin. A wing of course is flown by angle of attack and a plane can be<br>
at a high angle of attack yet a "low" nose high attitude to the ground.<br>
So, a high angle of attack and a true stall can occur at a relatively<br>
low nose high attitude relative to the ground but how often is it<br>
downgraded or zeroed because the judge does not know the difference<br>
between the two? All of the time. I see and hear it all of the time.<br>
"He could not have stalled because the nose was not high enough" Wrong,<br>
wrong, wrong.<br>
<br>
This link has some basic info for those who want to read even more:<br>
<a href="http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0165.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0165.shtml</a><br>
<br>
I also agree that judging is way better than before in just about every<br>
respect. We can always make it better of course and these discussions<br>
make some mad and some frustrated but enlighten others. If one does not<br>
truly understand basic aerodynamics, then they cannot become a good<br>
judge. The concepts of pitch attitude and angle of attack are key to<br>
understanding stalls and snaps so they are key things that we all must<br>
understand. Understanding the difference makes judging these maneuvers<br>
so much easier.<br>
<br>
AMA vs. FAI I also agree completely about having to change gears when<br>
judging these classes back to back at a contest. Even trying to keep<br>
the rules straight for the 2 types is difficult at best.<br>
<br>
I hope as well as others that you can continue participating in pattern<br>
with us! We need everyone.<br>
<br>
Chris<br>
<br>
Del wrote:<br>
> Chris...<br>
> Please!!! don't take this personally directed at/ _you_/ or any _one<br>
> individual_. The list is a great medium to have intellectually<br>
> stimulating discussion that often is educational.<br>
> Judging is an arbitrary art. Do we all have the same calibrated<br>
> eyeball? No.. But all judges should be seeing and judging the same<br>
> maneuver with similar downgrades. Are all downgrades going to be<br>
> identical.. Not realistically ~ No.. Is that the best we can do..<br>
> possibly..? The NSRCA has worked hard with many volunteers over the<br>
> years trying to enlighten and improve the caliber of judging and it is<br>
> much better than it was 20 years ago..<br>
> At this stage of evolution when the judges are reduced to nit picking<br>
> shows how well the judging has improved for the overall big picture.<br>
> Is it realistic to stop the nitpicking.. It is part of the beast we<br>
> enjoy to participate in.. Some terminology in the judging guide could<br>
> be tweaked and improved on for those that like to over analyze. The<br>
> snap by its very nature if often judged just on the merits of the snap<br>
> itself which no judge should ever do. Entry and exit are also worthy<br>
> of their focus. That snap in some cases happens in less than 1 sec. It<br>
> is always going to have disparity in the scores just based on the fact<br>
> not all eyes see and recognize all the details they need to catch in<br>
> that sec. let alone feeling burnout or watery eyes etc. that make a<br>
> judge miss something.<br>
> It is hard to expect all judges to shift gears from FAI to AMA and<br>
> back again during the same day or same contest. Dwindling numbers make<br>
> that a reality.<br>
> I will always contend that your mission as a pattern competitor is to<br>
> show the judges to the best of your ability what the rule books<br>
> describes. As a pilot if you try to change your flying to what one<br>
> given judge expects your are hurting yourself and your overall<br>
> performance. I guess that is why they still insist on throwing out<br>
> some judges scores at the major competitions. Wish it weren't so but<br>
> that is also part of the process.<br>
> I personally didn't read anyone saying they were judging by the way<br>
> they like it.. I may have missed some posts but what I read, some were<br>
> showing, for clarification, that some statements being made, where in<br>
> error and just trying to clarify what the specific rule actually<br>
> states... Not what someone interprets..<br>
> I have always had an issues in FAI judging when 2 pilots flies<br>
> identical maneuvers and one flies consistently 5 degrees off in<br>
> track/heading and the other flies on the rail do they both deserve a<br>
> 10 if all elements in the maneuver have been done per the rules? Some<br>
> argue that 1 point / 15 is applied before they get to a 15º error..<br>
> others read it to mean that your don't give a down grade till at least<br>
> 15º of track have been shown. Thankfully in AMA we have the 1/2 points<br>
> to work with.<br>
> So yes you are right that no judge is to judge based on what they<br>
> prefer except when it comes to style and presentation ~ the lower<br>
> criteria for downgrades.<br>
> ~~~ Who gets the better score...? Dean Pappas once told us that the<br>
> one that hides their corrections the best. That alone is another art<br>
> /subject. So when judging ~~ do you best to be consistent and fair to<br>
> all.. When flying ~~ do your best to show the judges you do know how<br>
> to fly the maneuvers without any detectable errors. Learn to hide your<br>
> corrections.<br>
> I sincerely hoped I helped Chris. Feel free to comment on or off list<br>
> as you feel apropos. I still love the sport and what it has to offer<br>
> but am having to give it up ~~ possibly forever.. only time can tell..<br>
> Del<br>
><br>
> ----- Original Message -----<br>
> *From:* chris moon<br>
> *To:* <a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
><br>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 17, 2008 12:15 PM<br>
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI<br>
><br>
> Is it not the pilot's responsibility to simply fly the maneuver as<br>
> depicted? Why then must they exaggerate a portion to placate a judge<br>
> who wants to see it their way? Our judging training materials<br>
> distinctly say not to downgrade just because the maneuver is not done<br>
> the way you like. The example was one pilot making sharp corners in a<br>
> square loop vs another making larger more rounded corner. Both are<br>
> correct and should be judged identically but can anyone argue that<br>
> one<br>
> way should be downgraded because it was not the way "you like it"<br>
> Stalls, snaps and spins are no different. Not the way I like it = so<br>
> what. If it is done correctly it is always a 10. I would think<br>
> that if<br>
> the other judges are consistently giving "normal" scores and I am<br>
> zeroing or giving some nominal score, that there has to be an issue<br>
> going on. Am I the only one who is consistently right in my thinking<br>
> and everyone else is all wrong? Or, could it be the other way around?<br>
><br>
> Chris<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Del wrote:<br>
> > It is the "PILOTS" responsibility to fly the maneuver as<br>
> described per<br>
> > the rules. If said pilots chooses to not make it obvious or<br>
> > discernable to the judge then enjoy the score you should be awarded.<br>
> > Del<br>
> ><br>
> > ----- Original Message -----<br>
> > *From:* chris moon<br>
> > *To:* <a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
> ><br>
> > *Sent:* Monday, June 16, 2008 5:11 PM<br>
> > *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI<br>
> ><br>
> > George - you have made an excellent point in that the interval<br>
> may by<br>
> > "minuscule" and not overly noticeable to everyone. It is absolutely<br>
> > wrong for some to claim that you must "show" them as judge an<br>
> > exaggerated pitch up just to satisfy a personal interpretation<br>
> of the<br>
> > maneuver. Just as is is absolutely wrong for those judges to demand<br>
> > another overly exaggerated pitch up as a stall entry to a spin<br>
> > maneuver. It is never the job of the participant to exaggerate a<br>
> > portion of a maneuver just to prove it exists, therefore your<br>
> > usage of<br>
> > the term "minuscule" in terms of the time interval between pitch and<br>
> > rotation is something we need to keep in mind.<br>
> ><br>
> > Chris<br>
> ><br>
> > george w. kennie wrote:<br>
> >> My lip is becoming too painful from biting it, so I think I'm<br>
> > going to<br>
> >> stick my nose in here somewhere.<br>
> >> I think I'm with Jon on this one.<br>
> >> My logic, however flawed, tells me that if I am flying my plane<br>
> >> straight and level and I input rudder, no matter how much, there<br>
> > is no<br>
> >> way that this input will induce a stall to the airframe.<br>
> > Therefore, it<br>
> >> seems to me, that the necessary force required to stall the main<br>
> >> lifting surface must come from the elevator. It would further<br>
> > seem to<br>
> >> me that this input must, by it's very nature produce a pitching<br>
> >> attitude to the fuselage whether positive or negative. So I<br>
> > would have<br>
> >> to conclude that the attitude "break" referenced by the rule can<br>
> > only<br>
> >> refer to a "pitch" break and would be impossible to confuse<br>
> with an<br>
> >> attitude change induced by the rudder seeing that the required<br>
> > result<br>
> >> is to stall the main wing.<br>
> >> And yes Jon, I agree that it would be necessary to lead with the<br>
> >> elevator in order to bring about this attitude change before<br>
> > rotation<br>
> >> is started, however miniscule the interval might be.<br>
> >> Of course I'm still open to hearing other interpretations and<br>
> their<br>
> >> validations as these observations are strictly opinions.<br>
> >> G.<br>
> >><br>
> >> ----- Original Message -----<br>
> >> *From:* Jon Lowe<br>
> >> *To:* <a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
> >><br>
> >> *Sent:* Monday, June 16, 2008 2:10 PM<br>
> >> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI<br>
> >><br>
> >> Jim,<br>
> >><br>
> >> I have no clue how you think all three axes can be initiated at<br>
> >> the same time. You keep forgetting the part of the RULE, quoted<br>
> >> verbatim below, that says the "fuselage break and separation from<br>
> >> the flight path" must happen "BEFORE THE ROTATION IS STARTED". I'm<br>
> >> NOT equating fueselage break to pitch break, it could break in<br>
> >> pitch and/or yaw, if it doesn't start rotation at the same time.<br>
> >> If you initiate all three axis at the same time, rotation WILL<br>
> >> start at the same instant, and that is specifically NOT permitted.<br>
> >> READ THE RULE! The judge MUST determine if the fuselage broke and<br>
> >> separated from the flight path first, BEFORE the rotation started.<br>
> >> If it didn't, he MUST severely downgrade.<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> Jon Lowe<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> -----Original Message-----<br>
> Klipped 4 reposting<br>
><br>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
<br>
Earn cashback on your purchases with Live Search - the search that pays you back! Learn More<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
<br>
<br>
No virus found in this incoming message.<br>
Checked by AVG.<br>
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.0/1506 - Release Date: 6/17/2008 4:30 PM<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
<br>
Keith Hoard<br>
Collierville, TN<br>
<a href="mailto:khoard@gmail.com" target="_blank">khoard@gmail.com</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><br>Keith Hoard<br>Collierville, TN<br><a href="mailto:khoard@gmail.com">khoard@gmail.com</a><br><br>